yea most people really hate it but its not that bad, its just alone. Is the building going to look any different once the renovation is done?

__________________
"Dazzled by the needles of light stitching the water, I turned to watch him watch them. I noticed his eyelashes were reflected in his eyes, like awning in windowpanes. As I tried to make sense of that reflection, I found I could not look away. His irises were brown, clouding into orange with brighter flecks around his pupils. Then it became as important not to look as to look, I feared I would be lost in rush of bronze motes."

Oh man, who wants to complain about this clearly stunning tower.
It's so elegant and timelessly modern.....
Plus it's been miles ahead of its time!
So much better than any building in la defense.
Thumbs up for Tour Montparnasse!

Is that not the skyscraper that went up and then everyone hated it and it made Paris ban skyscrapers, and that is why La Defense happened?

Thats what I heard. They felt this tower ruined Paris' beauty, so they banned high-rises.

Yes and no.

La Défense was planned (and started) even before the Tour Montparnasse was under construction.
So, the decision to create a business center with high-rises oustide Paris has nothing to do with the rejection of the Tour Montparnasse.

However, in 1974 (after the death of George Pompidou, the president who favored modernity), skyscrapers were, indeed banned from the city center, and that decision, certainly benefited to La Défense.

I'm not sure that the Tour Montparnasse was the main reason for the ban. Many other high-rises were built around 1970 (13e arrondissement, Jussieu, Front de Seine...) and they were said to be wildly unpopular (I have my doubts about the reality of that assertion). I think that the mediocrity of those developments resulted in the ban.

As it is unique climbing in sky, it makes it a piece of interesitng block. I like just while is a one-block middle lowrises. It is quite clean, simple and easy to learn and read in skyline by its times. If would had a lot of similar ones around, then the mediocry would comes. As it is alone, it is beautiful. Comparing to many decay lowrises around it, it is awesome. The low rises could be changed to more blank spaces in between with medium scrapers.

Montparnasse used to be a hill, but was leveled for Boulevard Montparnasse sometime in the 18th century. Just about like any city, the topography of Paris today is largely leveled hills, with a few exceptions (i.e. Montmartre). The area today is a major transit and business hub, which is why I was kind of confused about the comment about the tower being out of place. In fact, it's location makes a lot of sense to me, even if it does stick out as one of the lone skyscrapers in the central city. I guess I would have understood more a question about why other skyscrapers of its height weren't built in Paris, but it hardly seems "out of the way" or "out of place," to me, since Montparnasse is such a major transit and business node in Paris.

BTW, this is one of my favorite skyscrapers, ever. And, a lot of that has to do with its uniqueness in Paris, but it's just a very clean and nearly perfect modern design if you ask me. It just seems so quintessentially French.